Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
From: Albert (albertwagner_at_cox.net)
Date: 02/16/05
- Next message: doog: "Re: peak oil revisited"
- Previous message: Timo Nieminen: "Re: Inertial-dampening systems"
- In reply to: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 15:49:12 -0600
Tony Orlow (aeo6) wrote:
> Albert said:
>
>>Tony Orlow (aeo6) wrote:
>>
>>>Albert said:
>>>
>>>>Tony Orlow (aeo6) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Albert said:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Tony Orlow (aeo6) wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>>>>>If God
>>>>>>>knows you will have Cheerios, can you possibly choose instead to have
>>>>>>>Rice Krispies?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Of course. You can chosen either. Foreknowing is not the same as
>>>>>>determining. The future isn't fixed, but to one outside of
>>>>>>space-time, observation of any point in space-time is not a problem.
>>>>>
>>>>>If God knows you will eat Cheerios, and you choose Rice Krispies
>>>>>instead, then God was wrong, and therefore not omniscient.
>>>>
>>>>I can't believe that you don't see the absurdity of this remark.
>>>>How can God be wrong about what you ate when what he is seeing is
>>>>what you actually did?
>>>
>>>The question was whether God knew exactly what you were going to do at
>>>some future time, and whether you were able to choose to do other than
>>>what God knows you will do.
>>
>>As a gedanken, take God out of it, and leave just yourself: The
>>question you are actually asking is whether it is possible for
>>you to change the past and do what you didn't do.
>>
>>If you say yes to that, then I ask can you do it without God's
>>knowledge?
>
> First of all, my statement was about the incompatibility of the
> omniscience of god and the existence of free will.
Which I showed you was wrong.
> If you take god out
> of the picture, then we're not discussing the same thing.
Of course we are. The the logical problem is the same.
> Secondly, it
> is not possible for me to change the past,
OK.
> so your second question is
> meaningless.
No. It would only be asked if you replied 'yes' to the first.
> Freedom of will doesn't mean you can do A AND B, but that
> you can choose A OR B.
Agreed. The future will be contingent on your choice today.
>>>Either you can, and therefore what God
>>>"knew" was wrong, so God's not omniscient. Or, you can't because God is
>>>never wrong, and therefore you have no freedom to will otherwise.
Dammint, Tony. Where did you pick up that stupid belief that
stating the same thing over and over negates any previous
refutations.
>>That is a false dichotomy that you base on false concepts of
>>time, foreknowledge, determination and who knows what else.
>
> That is about as unspecific a criticism as I've seen from you Albert.
It is very specific. You committed a logical fallacy, and I
spelled it out. I can't do your thinking for you.
> What false concepts is my argument based on, the idea that knowing what
> is going to happen implies that it is going to happen?
Yes.
> Where is the error in that?
Your belief that knowing what choice you made in your past means
that in that past you had no choice.
>
>>Endless repetition does not make it true.
>>
>>Knowledge about your future by a being outside of time is not
>>determinism.
>
> It is if there is nothing you can do to change it.
You can only choose in the now.
> How else do you define determinsm?
You have no choice in the now.
>>>I know
>>>this may be offensive to you, Albert, and I'm sorry,
>>
>>Don't be sorry. Your inability to grasp the logic of what I say
>>is in no way offensive to me. But it does reflect poorly on you.
>
> You haven't used any logic, Albert. You're usually pretty good with
> that, but I have hit a sore point for you, and you're getting emotional
> about it ("and who knows what else").
LOL. Yes, bemusement is emotional.
>>>but the logic is
>>>pretty simple. Maybe God can defy logic? Is that the easy out?
>>
>>No, the easy way out is for you to understand the logical
>>absurdity you pose. However, for the record: God is certainly
>>not bound by his own creations, which include you, logic, and
>>your poor understanding of logic.]
>
> So, your concept of god is illogical? Okay, enough said. Mine isn't.
We need a simple word for this consistent behaviour of yours
where you put words in my mouth.
How about another gedanken:
Assume it is the morning of February 5, 2006.
Assume that a being exists that is outside of time. (Or if that
is too hard, then assume a being exists that can travel in time,
backwards and forwards.)
Lets call this being The Traveler.
Assume that this creature has no control over you and that you
have free will.
You are about to choose your breakfast, Cheerios or Rice Crispies.
Sitting beside you is The Traveler. He holds in his hand a
sealed envelope.
You ask him, "Do you know which cereal I will choose?"
He replies, "Yes, It's written down in this sealed envelope"
You reply, "OK, let's test".
You then make a choice, exercising your free will.
Lets say you choose Cheerios.
The Traveler then hands you the sealed envelope.
You open it and find, in your own handwriting the message: "The
Traveler was here today, February 6, 2006, and asked me to write
down what I had for breakfast yesterday. I had Cheerios."
Now, was your free will violated in any way?
--
"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the
range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally
impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it."
-- George Orwell as Syme in "1984"
- Next message: doog: "Re: peak oil revisited"
- Previous message: Timo Nieminen: "Re: Inertial-dampening systems"
- In reply to: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
